Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
. one line, infinite possibilities. >>> ill advised. that's what jim baker, with the nra, calls this the ad. >> are the president's kids more important than yours? why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school? >> the nra ad you may recall prompted an outraged response from the white house, press secretary carney called it repugnant and cowardly. baker went on to say to reuters, i think the ad could have made a good point if it talked about the need for increased school security without use the president's children. in a statement the nra tells "outfront," differences of opinion are common to organizations throughout the country where there is no disagreement, however, is with nra's belief that every child in america should be safe. that sort of sounds like a smackdown of their lobbyist. what do you think? was baker speaking out of turn or not? john avlon, there's disagreement in the nra. i don't know if you view it as a smackdown, it appeared to be to me. what do you make of this public divide within
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)